January 11, 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto

January 11, 2007 Global Design Effort 1

Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface

BDS Area leaders

Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto

ILC MAC meeting, January 10-12, 2007

January 11, 07 Global Design Effort BDS: 2

BDS design optimization and evolutionVancouver => MAC(Sep06) => Valencia => MAC(Jan07)

• Configuration changes (CCRs) after Vancouver– Baseline configuration to 14/14, single collider hall– 5m muon walls instead of 9+18m – CCR approved 23rd Sep

– On surface detector assembly – CCR approved 2nd Nov

• Evaluations by WWS, MDI panels & CCB• MAC (Sep 06) • Further cost optimizations studies

– Shorter BDS and shorter extraction lines • Several optics versions proposed, extraction lines shortened

– Single IR – evaluation of push-pull• Task force charged to report at Valencia• CCR submitted 19th Nov, on 23rd Dec CCB issued recommendation for

the EC to approve the CCR. The EC approved it last Thursday


Vancouver baseline to Valencia baseline

20mr IR

2mr IR

FF

E-collim.-collim.

DiagnosticsBSYtune-up dump

Two collider halls separated longitudinally by 138m

14mr IR

14mr IR

One collider hall

Vancouver baseline

Valencia baseline


Valencia 14/14 baseline. Conceptual CFS layout

IP2

IP1

10m

1km

beam dump service hallalcoves

9m shaft for BDS access

polarimeter laser borehole

muon wall tunnel widening


CFS designs for two IRs

Valencia

Vancouver


beam dump service hall

alcoves

9m shaft for BDS access & service hall

beam dump and its shield

muon wall tunnel widening

Beam Delivery System tunnels


Muon walls

Baseline configuration:18m and 9m walls in each beamline

Scheme of a muon wall installed in a tunnel widening which provides passage around the wall

• Purpose:– Personnel Protection: Limit

dose rates in one IR when beam sent to other IR or to the tune-up beam dump

– Physics: Reduce the muon background in the detectors


5m muon walls instead of 9+18m• Reduction of 18m muon spoilers to 5m and elimination of 9m muon

spoilers – CCR submitted 8th September• Considered that

– The estimation of 0.1% beam halo population is conservative and such high amount is not supported by any simulations

– The minimum muon wall required for personnel protection is 5m– Detector can tolerate higher muon flux– Cost of long muon spoilers is substantial, dominated by material

cost and thus approximately proportional to the muon wall length

• The caverns will be built for full length walls, allowing upgrade if higher muons flux would be measured

• MDI panel accepted this change• CCB approved this request on 23rd September; contingent upon

continuation of detailed detector studies to ensure that the occupancy due to muons does not affect the high precision physics measurements


CMS assembly approach• Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work• Allows pre-commissioning before lowering• Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment• Potential for big time saving• Reduces size of required underground hall

On-surface assembly : CMS approach


On-surface detector assembly CCR

• According to tentative CF&S schedule worked out by M. Gastal, CERN, the detector hall is ready for detector assembly after 4y11m after project start– If so, cannot fit into the goal of “7years until first beam” and “8years

until physics run”• Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this

goal– The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this case – A building on surface is needed, but savings may be still substantial

• Discussing possible variations :– pure CMS assembly (config B)– modified CMS assembly (config A)

• Assemble smaller (than CMS) pieces on surface, lower down and perform final assembly underground

• May affect schedule (?), but preliminary looks by a small bit less expensive than “B”

• The change request not intended to specify all the details for the schedule, hall sizes, capacity of cranes etc.– Such optimisation is being done in details by BDS, CF&S and Detector

concept groups.• CCB approved this CCR on 2nd November.


CERN LHC-ILC engineering forum Participation by MDI members (Oct. 12,13)

• Tour of ATLAS, CMS and ALICE

• Presentations on:

– Radiation protection issues

– CMS services

– ATLAS installation

– CMS installation + infrastructure

– ILC MDI :present status and understanding – H. Yamamoto and A. Seryi

– Assembly and installation of an ILC detector – N. Meyners

• Extremely useful information from CERN colleagues based on real experience.


Optimizing the design and tweaking it to understand its position w.r.to the optimum

• Since Vancouver, incorporated other cost saving changes– redesigned tail folding octupoles, final doublet, refined

vacuum requirements, redesigned CFS tunnels, changed design of water and air cooling systems, decimated bends, removed any spares and overheads, scrutinized all tech area for cost savings, etc.

• Other design optimization studies that were performed, but were not included, as not giving performance improvement and/or cost savings– studied shorter BDS or its subsystems– studied lowering power of tune-up dumps– studied replacing magnetized “muon walls” with magnetized

muon doughnuts


Single IR questions

• GDE suggested evaluation of push-pull at the end of September. • Questions to be evaluated

– Organizational and historical questions– Accelerator design questions– Detector design questions– Engineering integration questions

• Detailed list of questions to be studied developed:

• Technical evaluation of push-pull option by an extended task force, which include more than 60 detector and accelerator experts from ILC community and beyond. Detailed summary presented at Valencia.

• Conclusions from task force: should be feasible, provided careful design and sufficient R&D resources

• Conclusions from detector concept groups: do not see show stoppers, detailed engineering design studies are needed to give confidence, in meantime would like to see two IR option kept as an alternative

• WWS comments : H. Yamamoto (next talk)

http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/acceldev/beamdelivery/rdr/docs/push-pull/


IR14 mrad

14 mrad ILC FF9 hybrid (x 2)

14 mrad (L* = 5.5 m) dump lines

e- e+hybrid “BSY” (x 2)

2226 m

ΔZ ~ -650 m w.r.t. ILC2006c

• Upgrade to 1 TeV CM involves adding magnets only … no geometry changes

•Total BDS Z-length is 4452 m (2 IRs:5100m)

•Removed dedicated energy error dianostics (MPS) and replaced with polarimeter chicane (some issues)

Single IR BDS (version 2006e)

M. Woodley et al


BDS with single IR

14mr IR

FF

E-collimator

-collim.

Diagnostics

Tune-up dump

BSY

Sacrificial collimators

Extraction


polarimeterskew correction /emittance diagnostic

MPScoll

betatroncollimation

fastsweepers

tuneupdump

septa

fastkickers

energycollimation

betamatch

energyspectrometer

finaltransformer

finaldoublet

IP

energyspectrometer

polarimeter

fastsweepers

primarydump


QFSM1moves~0.5 m

polarimeterchicane

septafastkickers

“Type B” (×4)

500GeV => 1TeV CM upgrade in BSY of 2006e

M. Woodley et al

Magnets and kickers are added in energy upgrade


Single IR BDS optics (2006e)

FF

E-c

ollim

ator

-collim.Diagnostics

BSY

Pol

arim

eter

E-s

pect

rom

eter


warm

Detector

IP

common stationary cryostat

QD0QF1

vacuum connection & feedback kicker

Concept of single IR Final Doublet

Redesigned FDOriginal FD and redesigned for push-pull (BNL)


cancellation of the external field with a shield coil has been successfully demonstrated at BNL

BNL prototype of self shielded quad

IR magnets

BNL prototype of sextupole-octupole magnet


• Rearranged extraction quads are shown. Optics performance is very similar.

• Both the incoming FD and extraction quads are optimized for 500GeV CM.

• In 1TeV upgrade would replace (as was always planned) the entire FD with in- and outgoing magnets. In this upgrade, the location of break-point may slightly move out. (The considered hall width is sufficient to accommodate this).

http://ilcagenda.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1187

Nominal scheme

Push-pull scheme

New optics for extraction FD : push pull compatible

B.Parker, Y.Nosochkov et al.


Extraction Lines : shortened by 100m

high L parameters(500 GeV CM)

For undisrupted beam reliance on beam sweeping on beam dump window using kickers.

Total loss before and at collimators for High L parameters is within acceptable levels. Losses for the nominal case are negligible.


detectorB

may be accessible during run

accessible during run Platform for electronic and

services (~10*8*8m). Shielded (~0.5m of concrete) from five sides. Moves with detector. Also provide vibration isolation.

Concept of single IR with two detectors

The concept is evolving and details being worked out

detectorA


Detector systems connections

fixed connections

long flexible connections

detectordetector service platform or mounted on detector

high V AC

high P room T Hesupply & return

chilled water for electronics

low V DC forelectronics

4K LHe for solenoids

2K LHe for FD

high I DC forsolenoids

high I DC for FD

gas for TPCfiber data I/O

electronics I/O

low V PShigh I PSelectronic racks4K cryo-system2K cryo-systemgas system

sub-detectorssolenoidantisolenoidFD

move together


QD0 part QF1 part

doorcentral part

Optimized for fast switch of detectors in push-pull and fast opening on beamline

This scheme require lengthening L* to 4.5m and increase of the inner FD drift

Opening of detectors on the beamline (for quick fixes) may need to be limited to a smaller opening than what could be done in off-beamline position

Push-pull cryo configuration


250mSv/h

Shielding the IR hall

Self-shielding of GLD Shielding the “4th“ with walls


Working progress on IR design…

John Amann

3m Thickness

9m Base25m Height

Structural Rib

Overlapping Rib

Illustration of ongoing work… Designs are tentative & evolving

Mobile Shield Wall

Mobile Platform20m x 30m

Electronics/Cryo Shack1m Shielded


CFS layout for single IR & central DR


CFS layout for single IR


Single IR – push pull schedule

• The hardware can be designed to be compatible with a ~one day move, and this can be a design goal– Need to study cost and reliability versus the move duration

– Need to study regulations in each regions • A.Yamamoto presented a scheme (which includes warming-

up the cold-box and disconnecting room T lines) and give an estimation of one week (many other tasks can be done in parallel with cryo work), which can serve as conservative boundary of the range

• Recalibration (at Z) may or may not be needed, and may be independent on push-pull – to be studied

• BDS group will study the range between one day and one week and optimize the design versus cost, performance, reliability, etc.


Single IR, push-pull : cost

• Cost difference of two IR versus single IR push-pull as reported to CCB on Dec.15 (based on Valencia wbs):– baseline 14/14: 100%– estimate for single p-p IR: 69.1%, with further updates 67.6%

• Estimation of saving, in Value cost, is 31-32% of BDS cost

• Using single push-pull IR saves about one third of two IR BDS cost, or in other words the two IR BDS is by about 50% more expensive than single push-pull IR BDS

• Estimation of additional hardware that is needed to make push-pull feasible is small fraction of the savings


From summary of CCB response on Single IR push-pull

• “CCB agrees that .. CCR … qualifies as Class-2. Consequently, CCB assumes that its role … is to make recommendation to EC … rather than to make a decision.

• CCB recommends EC … to accept CCR#23, whereby incorporating the "1IR with two detectors push-pull" as Baseline Configuration.

• CCB recommends EC to maintain the previous Baseline with "2IR, single hall, two detectors" as part of Alternative Configuration.

• CCB recommends EC to reinforce a taskforce on Machine-Detector-Interface issues. The taskforce should be specifically charged … to facilitate pertinent design development efforts and discussions on relevant executive matters.”


Briefly on other systems

• Magnets and PS• Vacuum system• Crab cavities• Beam dumps & collimators• IR hall, surface buildings & cranes


• Most of the magnets are rather standard, but require good magnetic and mechanical stability

• All PS are high availability design, stability in several ppm range (building ~40 PS for ATF2 now)

• PS are placed in the service tunnel, cable penetrations are every 100m, which reduces heat load in the tunnel helping thermal and mechanical stability

• All BDS magnets in incoming beamlines except bends are on movers with 50nm step

• Special magnets except FD and first extraction quads:– SC tail folding octupoles (BNL design)– beam sweepers– Kickers with option of DC bends– Antisolenoids embedded in the detector– Detector integrated dipoles (part of detector solenoid)– Magnetized muon walls

Magnets and PS


Vacuum system

• Material choice – is defined by the resistive wall effects for off-

centered bunch: preserving the beam emittance discourage use of SS chambers

– Considered Al version and Cu plated SS chambers. Chosen the latter as more reliable, keeping Al for backup option. Chambers in the places where SR is expected (e.g. chicanes) are Cu

• Vacuum pressure– determined by the need to minimize background due

to beam-gas. – Need 1nTorr in ~200m upstream of IP (may need in

situ baking), ~10nTorr in 200-800m and ~50nTorr in the rest of the system


Crab cavities

• Top: earlier prototype of 3.9GHz deflecting (crab) cavity designed and build by Fermilab. This cavity did not have all the needed high and low order mode couplers. • Bottom: Cavity modeled in Omega3P, to optimize design of the LOM, HOM and input couplers.FNAL T. Khabibouline et al., SLAC K.Ko et al.Design is being continued by UK-US team

3.9GHz cavity achieved 7.5 MV/m

• BDS has two SC 9-cell cavities located ~13 m upstream of the IP operated at 5MV/m peak deflection. • Based on a Fermilab design for a 3.9GHz TM110 mode 13-cell cavity. • The uncorrelated phase jitter between the positron and electron crab cavities must be controlled to 61 fsec to maintain optimized collisions. • A proof-of-principle test of a 7 cell 1.5GHz cavity at the JLab ERL facility has achieved a 37 fsec level of control. • Other key issues to be addressed are LLRF control and higher-order mode damping.


18MW Water Dump design features

BDS features– Optics & drift to increase undisrupted beam spot size on window– Raster beam in 30mm radius circle in 1 ms; interlock to MPS– Hi-power donut collimators to protect vessel window

Vessel– 6.5m (18X0) water followed by 1m water-cooled Cu (22X0)– 1.5m diameter with vortex flow water, v=1.0-1.5 m/s , at r=30cm– 10 atm to prevent boiling– 30 cm diameter 1mm Ti vessel window with water cooling nozzles

Rad water system– 2300 gpm three loop water system– 18 MW heat exchanger & ~400HP of pumps per loop– Catalytic H2-O2 recombiner– Mixed bed ion exchange column to filter 7Be– Containment for tritiated water

Shielding– 50cm Fe + 150cm concrete ‘local’ protection for personnel & beamlines– 200cm site dependent to protect ground water


18MW Dump design

• Two companies: Fichtner & Framatome, design and cost estimate for TESLA TDR

• Fichtner design for TESLA reworked by RAL

• Taken into account recent RAL experience with industry

• RAL design included additions for window remote handling, air exchange and control, air drying and recovery, etc.


IR surface area


Included in IR hall and surface buildings:

• IR halls: – finished civil engineering works, plus– movable concrete intermediate shielding wall in two parts (on air

pads)– steel platforms with staircases and all fittings– two 1.6t elevators between steel platforms plus two 2.8t in shafts,– steel plates on the floor of the Hall– one 400t and two 20t overhead cranes in Hall– etc…

• Included in surface assembly building:– 400t and 20t overhead cranes

• Requirements for detector assembly are different (table on the next slide). Since we cannot tell now which detectors will be used, assumed Configuration A

• This choice can suite some detectors better than other (one size does not fit all) and is the reason for concerns

• Further adjustments of IR hall and surface building are needed, and detector colleagues should be more deeply involved in this design and also cost optimization


Table of IR assumptions

continued …


Summary

• Several configuration changes since Vancouver to Valencia and final RDR version.

• Single IR with two complementary detectors in push-pull configuration has been recommended by CCB to EC as a baseline for the RDR. The EC approved it last Thursday

• This configuration gives 30% saving compared to two IR 14/14 mrad configuration.

• Single IR BDS optics design allows upgrade to 1 TeV in the same tunnel.

• The on surface detector assembly will save 2-2.5 years and has been accepted by the MDI panel.

• The engineering details will be carried out in the EDR phase.


Backup slides


1 TeV cm

500 GeV cm


… continued …


Power & cooling in BDSTable as of Valencia, 1TeV CM, two IR.

9.768 + 0.862 + 2*18 MW => Power from Magnets, PS & Dumps to LCW

0.726 MW => Cables to Air=> approximately 60W/m in average

0.712 MW => PS to Air => taken out by Chilled water

Table is as of 11/26/2006


Cost breakdown for single IR

(Labor person-hours, such as installation, was converted to dollars to produce this chart)


Beam Dump Vessel


Beam Dump Service Cavern Layout


If detector does not provide any radiation protection:

• For 36MW maximum credible incident, the concrete wall at 10m from beamline should be ~3.1m

Wall

18MW loss on Cu target 9r.l \at s=-8m. No Pacman, no detector. Concrete wall at 10m.Dose rate in mrem/hr.

25 rem/hr

10m

Alberto Fasso et al


IR hall radiation safety criteria

• BDS produces and uses “ILC radiation guidance document”– beam containment policies and devices, conditions

for occupancy– For IR region, in particular, defines

• Normal operation: dose less than 0.05 mrem/hr (integrated less than 0.1 rem in a year with 2000 hr/year)

– allows non-rad workers in IR hall • Accidents: dose less than 25rem/hr and integrated less than

0.1 rem for 36MW of maximum credible incident (MCI)


Detector sizes & opening on beamline

GLD SiD (opened)

2m

Since opening of detectors on the beamline is intended only for quick fixes, the required width for opening may be smaller that for opening off-beamline


FD with L*=4.5m & lengthened warm drift section by +0.7m

Detector opened on beamline (GLD opening reduced to 1.5m) still leaves 0.5m of not-overlapped space for config.C


Instrumentation

• Laser wire• Deflecting cavity Y-T• Loss monitors ion chamber & PMT• Cav BPM C-band, S-band, L-band• Stripline or button bpm• X sync light tr. profile imager• OTR, OTRI• Current monitors• Pickup phase monitors• Feedbacks• Polarimeter laser upstream & downstream• E-spectrometer


IR coupling compensation

When detector solenoid overlaps QD0, coupling between y & x’ and y & E causes large (30 – 190 times) increase of IP size (green=detector solenoid OFF, red=ON)

Even though traditional use of skew quads could reduce the effect, the local compensation of the fringe field (with a little skew tuning) is the most efficient way to ensure correction over wide range of beam energies

without compensation y/ y(0)=32

with compensation by antisolenoid

y/ y(0)<1.01

QD0

antisolenoid

SD0

Documents

January 11, 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Beam Delivery System / Machine Detector Interface BDS Area leaders Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Andrei Seryi, Hitoshi Yamamoto